tv [untitled] January 8, 2013 5:00pm-5:30pm PST
who has performed those inspections. there is a tremendous amount of detail to this. i will tell you that if you look at the complaint, it's 20 pages, i stopped counting after referencing the eighth and ninth order of abatement. so, staff feels very strongly that no additional time should be given in the case. >> questions? >> appellant? my name is susanna shaw and i'm appealing. basically what happened, when i went to a director's hearing on august 9th, four of the cases i had no idea they even existed. there was one posting on my building at 10 16 through 10 20
noe street. and the tenant there gave me the posting. then i went to the director on august 9th. that was the first time i had ever had any knowledge of the other four cases. they are from 2009. my address where i live is 3825 24th street. and those four cases involved units in my building and the building next door, but there were no postings. when i got to the hearing and i saw those cases, i never received them in 2009. i had no knowledge of them whatsoever. when i got the cases, i went upstairs and got the cases. i immediately noticed that all four of them contained items.
i went into -- i was in a bankruptcy -- i have to backtrack a little bit. i bought this r -- this was originally a 6 unit building on church. i bought it in 1990 and i was warned by the former owners that i had very difficult tenants and they had been partners for 30 years and they were selling because they couldn't handle the people. and i was [speaker not understood], and i thought i'll be able to deal with the problems. but they were very difficult tenants and i gave a legitimate increase in 1994 and they called the housing department. they got three other units to complain plus the building where the fire was, 33 56 24th street. * and i had three n.o.v.s filed
there. there were rent strikes. i had 16 death threat calls by the same person, hanging up and calling back and a sign on my door, lynch the landlord. anyway, i went into bankruptcy partly a lot because of the rent strikes and i finally [speaker not understood] in 2005. at that time i had three n.o.v.s on my building, 3825 through 29, and there were three n.o.v.s on 3831 through 35. and then there were about five on the building where the fire was. and i went down to housing and i wanted to start clearing the properties and i wanted to start on the building next door. i condo'd that, so, i wanted to get three separate loans. and ivan [speaker not understood], i don't know if he's still there, brought out the file. one of the lists had already
[speaker not understood] already come out and marked the list with about 20 items in red ink, each item in red ink and circled in red ink. he turned this back momentarily with a file machine. i don't know. and i said, ivan, someone already came out and checked this list. and he wheeled around and he said, you forged that. anyway, he grabbed the file. he wouldn't give me the copies. what had happened is these three cases appeared on my file report and you can't refinance your property until you clear the abatement. the lender will not go behind outstanding abatement. so, i had to clear them. anyway, i came back the next day. i had never met rosemary boske,
and i was expecting -- i had three condo conversions, this building -- in my building. dealing with the building department, very level headed, professional. that's what i was expecting. she came out with david gonia, who is the senior inspector, and ivan sarkeny and all three of them screaming at me in unison that i had forged this list, they were going to send it to the city attorney and prosecute me. anyway, what happened is i finally had to get my attorney in there to come and get these three cases. and i cleared them in 2006. but now they're reappearing on these four notices that i got from 2009.
one thing i have to say about just continuing about what happened, i did clear these cases in 2006. at the same time, then david gonia came out there. he's now denying that he ever cleared them. and with isabelle olaveras, another housing inspector. at the same time i didn't know this, isabelle a went to my noe street property and entered the passage way, which is unlocked, twice and wrote four pages of items including the back staircase which i had completed with a permit in 2001. it was completely redone. we took it down and put up a new staircase with a permit plans. and i realized at that point that i had targeted by the
housing department and basically [inaudible] building rosemary responsible for keeping up a toxic atmosphere in her department [speaker not understood] for years. she could stop it at any time, but she is keeping this going. frankly, i'm 62 and i can't take it any more. she said that i do things without permits. that's not true. i had these buildings were condo converted, at least two buildings. i have their certificates for final completion. i have the electrical permits for the heaters. i get permits all the time because as i said, i'm used to dealing with the building department and very level headed people. anyway, what happened was -- >> i'm sorry, it's 7 minutes, time is up. i'm holding here -- they
deny that i asked them, when i filed this appeal, i didn't know i had 7 minutes. >> five matters? it's up to you. they're your rules and procedures. because there's five separate matters, the department has presented in one, i'm not sure it's fair to limit her to the 7 minutes. >> okay. >> but it's up to you. >> three more minutes. okay. anyway, i asked them when i filed this appeal about those three cases. and she looked it up on the computer and said i had never cleared any case on that building. and anyway, i came down here the next day and one of the revocations is on file. i cleared three and it's on each one. it's number 167 8 06. and what happened, i found out
they destroyed all the case downstairs two years ago after [speaker not understood]. so, some things did not make it onto the computer, the records. i'm talking about the records department. some things did not make it onto the computer. and i mean, it's not even recorded that case, you know, whenever it was recorded. so, but i did go out -- i did abate those cases. and what's going on is they're wanting -- the reason these cases are included is they're highly inflammatory items. after the fire happened, there was a lawsuit filed because i didn't have enough liability insurance and the city attorney filed a suit four days later without checking any allegationses in the lawsuit supporting them, and they were totally false.
and, anyway, there is a push by this department to aid these people. they're including my building in the lawsuit because, frankly, they want to help [inaudible]. all i have to say about this is this is an abuse of power and it's abuse of the public trust. you know, when i look at these papers, i'm a citizen and i think, oh, they must be right because they're part of the building department. but then i know like they're destroying records that i ever completed cases. they shouldn't be destroyed at the housing department. they have an excuse down here that they should still be there in the housing department. and frankly, i was extremely shocked. it took me over -- it took me almost eight months to clear
the items. also, i have complained about rosemary boske to ed sweeney three years ago about the noe street situation with the back staircase. and at that time he went and asked rosemary if she was targeting me and she denied it. frankly, i think there's kind of a secret contempt because i think she takes advantage of the aboveboard nature of the building department. all she has to do is just deny it. so, believe me, i've been a target for seven years and i can't take it any more. this is the most frightening thing that's happened to me. i mean, it was scary enough to have a fire in the building and have an injury and then have this on top of it.
anyway. i'm really frustrated. >> ms. shaw, very briefly, can you give us any inclination on what you're trying to do to correct anything here? we're working on it. i'm working on it with mr. [speaker not understood]. we're getting a lot done. which met with the city attorney yesterday. it was a very productive meeting. and you know, we're getting actually quite a bit done. and, so, the fire damage building, a lot of the pud problems on that building are being corrected. * they were corrected over the years. i had a contested case. i lost over a million dollars because of that. it was a struggle. i mean it was one struggle
after another. i had a lawyer, david [speaker not understood], little colorful. my bankruptcy attorney is now in jail for first degree murder. and then i walk into the housing department after i close that case. so, i've been through one horrible situation after another. in my life, but i can't stand this any more with housing, i really can't * . when i came to see you, you asked rosemary if she was targeting me. i came a couple days later and you told me that. then you asked me was i going to sue for harassment, and i was shocked. i didn't even know that possibility existed. so, i'm not a litigious [inaudible]. i just, i turn my buildings into condos. i'm trying to -- i inherited a
family business, it was started by my parents here in san francisco in 1952. you know, i just love buildings. so, that's my -- what i'm doing with my life. >> commissioner walker? >> so, we are here because there are outstanding notices of violation. yeah. >> so, i have heard you admit that there are issues that are listed that need to be resolved that you're working on. the issue with our department is that this goes back a long ways. and in the meantime, one of your properties actually caught fire. and our job here is to make sure that buildings are safe and habitable. so, my feeling is -- you know, looking at the pictures and
reading the documents, that our housing department is doing what it's supposed to do in trying to resolve outstanding violations that affect the habitability. you just admitted that the issues listed, you are working on. so, you know, i think that ultimately i would want to know what has taken you so long. it's not an answer that you've had other issues. what i've tried to explain is after that incident in 2006 with isabelle going all over my building on noe, i -- >> it's her job. yes. i realize that i was targeted at that point and i'm afraid of these people. i came here asking for time, but i would really want this situation to change. i'm afraid of this -- these people and this department. and that's a bad relationship.
[speaker not understood] and that's not good. i would like to -- i told them when i went in there after the bankruptcy, i want to clear my properties. so, you know, i do want to get everything, but, you know, i can't stand the bullying. they're frightening. to read something like this and find these cases that i already cleared included in these things, that's scary to me. these people are powerful in a public position and it's just scary. >> it's their job to make sure -- >> no, but it's not their job to destroy records and include old cases in here. >> if they haven't been cleared, that's what we're looking at. they were cleared, though. >> that's not what it says here. okay. there was a revocation order and there are supposed to be two more and i'm looking for my papers because the tapes were destroyed downstairs, okay.
there are two more that were already cleared and now these inflammatory items are being included to help people who are filing lawsuits to say, oh, she has horrible properties, let's take her properties. it's just an abuse of the public trust to do this. these situations don't -- aren't there any more, okay. >> it looks to me like they are. see, you're reading. that's abuse -- you're the public, you're abusing your trust. you're reading this on the paper so you think it must be true. but i've showed you the revocation, okay. that's city hall. i guess that doesn't count, right? >> it doesn't pertain to the issue that is in front of us. >> it does. >> commissioner mel gar? >> you know, i feel like i want to put this into a context a little bit. being a landlord is a business.
a businesslike running a restaurant or any other for profit enterprise. and you do it according to rules. and i realize that you want to be in the business. but, you know, we have codes for a reason. because people are doing the job that they're supposed to do, that the taxpayers hire them to do doesn't mean that they are abusing the public trust. so, we do have in front of us pictures. we have records. we have all sorts of evidence. you are telling us that things aren't so and you presented very little evidence to the contrary. so, i'm just wondering -- you are a very wealthy woman. you own a lot of real estate, one of the most expensive areas in san francisco. >> i also owe $4 million. >> you have resources. you own significantly more than that. so, i am just wondering --
there is also rent control. >> yes. and you own assets that would allow you to fix the problems in at least some of the buildings. your bankruptcy was 7 years ago. you have options. so, i'm just wondering why it is that you think that you're being victimized by this department when, you know, we're just following the rules. well, i explained to you what happened 7 years ago and i have been targeted. and i do hold [speaker not understood] responsible. she could change it at any point. >> it is her job to protect those tenants. i don't know why she came down and screamed at me like that. and she never checked to see if alex fong went and did that, went and made that inspection. i'm just frustrated and i need some change here, you know. i can't have -- i need, you know, an understanding of this situation. that really just can't go on.
for that toxic atmosphere to change. that's why i'm here really. it's potential, hopefully turning point in my life. >> commissioner mar? >> so, here's what it seems that we have to deal with. aside from what you feel is the atmosphere is that if you say you resolve some of the n.o.v.s, we need to see some paperwork about which violations have been resolved. the other thing is if you want more time and a lot of appellants come before us saying they need more time, we need to know that you've pulled or applied for certain permits to get some work done. so, you should have those things. i do. >> well, you need to show it to us. i mean, you need to say, here's the application for an
electrical plumbing whatever permit. through the permits -- >> you should have copies. i don't have it. but [speaker not understood], i did give him the recent plumbing -- recent building permit for the floor of the stairwell. so, he's seen that. i hope [inaudible]. >> so, those are the things we need to deal with. we need to see that there's some movement or that you've done some of the work. if you say things have been listed, maybe we could ask that when the staff comes back up. but we need to see that you've applied or started -- [speaker not understood] permits. all those back stairs, everything is fixed. there are a couple of handrails inside the apartment that mr. [speaker not understood] has to [speaker not understood]. he can verify that the back
staircase is totally -- >> so, maybe we could find out, yeah. >> should we move to the department rebuttal? you'll have one more chance to come back. thanks. >> is there a question? i didn't hear. as far as rebuttal, what i've already said, there's a lot of record there. we've done a tremendous amount of research on the permits that have been filed such as the electrical permits she's talking about. what we found it was for the 3r conversion and not for the heaters or there will be a note there were calculations for some of the heaters but there is not a permit to -- legalize heaters that she already put in for all the heaters in that particular building and we're talking about the 249tion street building. so, it's that kind of pattern, one thing after another. we have spent a tremendous amount of hours, the staff, working with her to try and
walk her through this process. we're now -- those notices that were before you started the issues in 2009. we're several years after that. and this process started even before that with notices of violation that were issued before that, that she never resolved. so, it's a revolving door. nothing ever really gets resolved. now, are there some notices now that are getting resolved? yes. because we filed lawsuits to have her comply. now there is some movement and hopefully that will help us get final resolution, which is what we would like to do with all three of these properties. but do we believe because of the history before you that this warrants an additional extension of time? no, we do believe that an order should be issued, recorded on the property so that anybody that tries to move into this building or whatever has ample notice. that's the way process is supposed to work. so, we do believe that the hearing officers were right in what they did, give the gravity and the extent of the information that you have and t